Keep in mind that the worlds of D&D aren't Earth, and do not follow their history.
Literacy (modern usage),specifically "speaking, reading, and writing", are considered default for races that include language proficiencies in their racial traits, according to the players handbook. Reasonably young children could be exempted from this for realism, but that is not addressed.
For NPCs as well?
It is not specified either way. It only says that full language proficiency is obtained by virtue of the chosen race, (as opposed to some form of exceptionalism). There doesn't appear to be any separate language rules for monsters, so we have to assume the stated rules apply universally. Obviously the Human Acolyte is going to be literate, and there is no formal distinction made between them and Commoners.
Alternate sections refer solely to speech, but would not contradict the more universal allowance for full literacy and, for RAI, ought to be assumed to be shorthand.
EDIT: As far as I can tell, Universal Literacy is simply a handwaved assumption to simplify the game, and it is left to the DM to decide whether they want to take on the extra burden of making the world more complicated.
PCs are by their nature exceptional, we can't just apply rules that apply to them to Commoners. I'm not sure what you mean that there is no distinction between a Commoner and an Acolyte as they do have different statblocks. If you mean neither mention knowing (or not knowing) how to read or write, then that's an assuming they would mention it. They'd wear different clothes, but that's not mentioned either.
I'm not sure I've seen anything to rule that Commoners can or can't read and write, and it's just left to DM discretion. I'd probably rule that they can, it's a lot easier to do stuff if they can. It'd feel a bit nasty to tell the players that their plan failed because the NPC they left a warning note for couldn't read it. With everything being high fantasy, it's not like it has to track reality in this regard anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It should have been clear from context that I meant a distinction regarding language rules. Clothing is non-mechanical and doesn't require mentioning. Language however is mechanical, and is mentioned in both statblocks. (There is also no mechanical reason that a commoner and an Acolyte couldn't wear the same clothes.)
LanguagesAny one language (usually Common)
Further, monsters with specific language limitations are given modified text to represent such. Example (Animated Breath)
They obviously didn’t attend public school, but just as obviously one doesn’t have to in order to learn. Where did I learn the original meaning of the word “literate?” Catholic school, as it was part of my religious education as to part of why the Mass stopped being said in Latin and the printing of the Bible in peoples native languages rather than only being printed in Latin.
Looking into the etymology of the word, this is correct. The term first saw use in the 1500s and did at the time refer specifically to the ability to read and understand Latin. It was not until the early 1800s that its use shifted to indicate a lack of familiarity with literature and/or the ability to read and write. Thank you for sharing.
Sure, but since it’s 2022, any modern discussion of historical literacy rates will refer to being able to read or write any language.
True, but since historically many if not most people could read and write their own native languages, I was correct when the subject first came up:
I'm just really not sure that's true though. Your original post based that position on a certain definition of literacy, but that definition of literacy isn't the one being used when modern historical research estimates average literacy in Middle Ages Europe at under 20%. Those numbers are arrived at by a number of methods unrelated to the Latin language, like whether or not they could sign even their own name on marriage certificates. I sadly no longer have JSTOR access so doing real research on this is beyond me, but I do have a history-adjacent degree and "most people in the Middle Ages could read and write their spoken language" feels like a significant enough departure from what's accepted within the field that I raise my eyebrows. I would legit love to read some actual research on the topic though.
They obviously didn’t attend public school, but just as obviously one doesn’t have to in order to learn. Where did I learn the original meaning of the word “literate?” Catholic school, as it was part of my religious education as to part of why the Mass stopped being said in Latin and the printing of the Bible in peoples native languages rather than only being printed in Latin.
Looking into the etymology of the word, this is correct. The term first saw use in the 1500s and did at the time refer specifically to the ability to read and understand Latin. It was not until the early 1800s that its use shifted to indicate a lack of familiarity with literature and/or the ability to read and write. Thank you for sharing.
Sure, but since it’s 2022, any modern discussion of historical literacy rates will refer to being able to read or write any language.
True, but since historically many if not most people could read and write their own native languages, I was correct when the subject first came up:
I'm just really not sure that's true though. Your original post based that position on a certain definition of literacy, but that definition of literacy isn't the one being used when modern historical research estimates average literacy in Middle Ages Europe at under 20%. Those numbers are arrived at by a number of methods unrelated to the Latin language, like whether or not they could sign even their own name on marriage certificates. I sadly no longer have JSTOR access so doing real research on this is beyond me, but I do have a history-adjacent degree and "most people in the Middle Ages could read and write their spoken language" feels like a significant enough departure from what's accepted within the field that I raise my eyebrows. I would legit love to read some actual research on the topic though.
Further, monsters with specific language limitations are given modified text to represent such. Example (Animated Breath)
Languagesunderstands Draconic but can’t speak
It's important to note that a creature cannot speak but can understand a language. It can receive orders but not respond verbally to questions. This can and does come up quite frequently. Being able to read or write is a question that comes up less often - I've yet to have actually had to rule on this.
If that's what you consider the most convincing...it's not very convincing. The first complains that having being literate even in a single language is unlikely (and I'm inferring the complaint is about many characters having multiple languages), he responds not that people were likely to be literate, but that there were many multilingual societies. Yeah, and in other news, the Pope is Catholic. Most societies would logically have had large segments of bilingual people - trade and proximity necessitated it, even without regard to how society treated language. That doesn't mean they were able to speak and write.
The second points out that it's odd that so many people are able to write, he responds not by pointing out that in reality people did read and write, but by pointing out that D&D societies can be and are (in indefinite scope) illiterate. That even contradicts your Commoner language statblock claim - they all have that statblock, and if the statblock meant that they were literate, then they would all be literate. Since some aren't, then their literacy, or lack thereof, is not indicated by the statblock.
I've yet to see anything that says that the Commoner is literate and capable of reading a book - it's left to the DM to decide how literate a society is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The implication I'm reading from the last line "There are illiterate cultures in all our D&D worlds,..." is that there are adventures, or other setting details, that would explicitly modify the generic monster entry for that culture. As in, illiteracy is explicitly called out in source material because it is notable, whereas literacy is not. Though, you are right that none of this is definitive.
Previous editions have had spells that require reading as a trigger, such as Sepia Snake Sigil, so there would have been some call to highlight this ability, should it not have been common.
I'm just really not sure that's true though. Your original post based that position on a certain definition of literacy, but that definition of literacy isn't the one being used when modern historical research estimates average literacy in Middle Ages Europe at under 20%. Those numbers are arrived at by a number of methods unrelated to the Latin language, like whether or not they could sign even their own name on marriage certificates. I sadly no longer have JSTOR access so doing real research on this is beyond me, but I do have a history-adjacent degree and "most people in the Middle Ages could read and write their spoken language" feels like a significant enough departure from what's accepted within the field that I raise my eyebrows. I would legit love to read some actual research on the topic though.
I wonder if that 20% accounted for functional literacy; where we define this as people who could read and write ‘enough’ in society relative to their role. One might be able to identify words related to their work, like a shoemaker needing to know which raw materials they need to purchase or a merchant needing to understand enough of the written word to navigate purchase contracts. Would they be considered literate or illiterate if their ability to read and write failed to extend beyond their labor role and if they had received no formal education? If 20% is defined as say ‘how much of the population received formal education’, then I do not think it would be a very reliable figure to understand population literacy at the time. A big enough of a question mark that I’m interested in learning more.
Even in cities, only some people read. If you owned a business - sure, you almost certainly knew your letters. Mind, you wouldn't have much use for them. Numbers, yea. Letters, not so much. But if you were one of the poor schmucks working a grindstone, producing cutlery (one of the very first mass produced items) then hell no! In the country, where you lived or died by whether or not the fields were sowed and plowed and tilled and harvested - and where reading was of absolutely zero relevance to anything, you'd likely go through life without ever seeing a scrap of paper - you did not read. Maybe you went to school for a few years, and you learned about christ our lord and savior
Why do you think the Trolls Head tavern had an actual trolls head hanging over the door? Because no one would know what it was, if it was written there instead. And that's a Terry Pratchett reference, so not ... ironclad, conclusive proof, as such.
There is proof, though. If you have any interest, I don't know. But there are plenty of documents signed by X's, or signed by someone other than the actual signee. There is the mere fact of rote learning: Children were taught to recite the catechismus - by heart - not to read it. There is the fact that religious law in Denmark required children to know the catechismus in order to get confirmation, from 1736, in Denmark. So from that time, children were taught in church - or in church schools. Before then, there basically were no schools, period.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is not specified either way. It only says that full language proficiency is obtained by virtue of the chosen race, (as opposed to some form of exceptionalism). There doesn't appear to be any separate language rules for monsters, so we have to assume the stated rules apply universally. Obviously the Human Acolyte is going to be literate, and there is no formal distinction made between them and Commoners.
Alternate sections refer solely to speech, but would not contradict the more universal allowance for full literacy and, for RAI, ought to be assumed to be shorthand.
EDIT: As far as I can tell, Universal Literacy is simply a handwaved assumption to simplify the game, and it is left to the DM to decide whether they want to take on the extra burden of making the world more complicated.
PCs are by their nature exceptional, we can't just apply rules that apply to them to Commoners. I'm not sure what you mean that there is no distinction between a Commoner and an Acolyte as they do have different statblocks. If you mean neither mention knowing (or not knowing) how to read or write, then that's an assuming they would mention it. They'd wear different clothes, but that's not mentioned either.
I'm not sure I've seen anything to rule that Commoners can or can't read and write, and it's just left to DM discretion. I'd probably rule that they can, it's a lot easier to do stuff if they can. It'd feel a bit nasty to tell the players that their plan failed because the NPC they left a warning note for couldn't read it. With everything being high fantasy, it's not like it has to track reality in this regard anyway.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It should have been clear from context that I meant a distinction regarding language rules. Clothing is non-mechanical and doesn't require mentioning. Language however is mechanical, and is mentioned in both statblocks. (There is also no mechanical reason that a commoner and an Acolyte couldn't wear the same clothes.)
Further, monsters with specific language limitations are given modified text to represent such. Example (Animated Breath)
I'm just really not sure that's true though. Your original post based that position on a certain definition of literacy, but that definition of literacy isn't the one being used when modern historical research estimates average literacy in Middle Ages Europe at under 20%. Those numbers are arrived at by a number of methods unrelated to the Latin language, like whether or not they could sign even their own name on marriage certificates. I sadly no longer have JSTOR access so doing real research on this is beyond me, but I do have a history-adjacent degree and "most people in the Middle Ages could read and write their spoken language" feels like a significant enough departure from what's accepted within the field that I raise my eyebrows. I would legit love to read some actual research on the topic though.
Here is some Sageadvice addressing the topic:
Most pointedly:
Here’s some: (https://www.europeana.eu/en/exhibitions/the-art-of-reading-in-the-middle-ages). Many people, particularly urbanites could, and did read during the Middle Ages. Maybe literacy was much lower in the more rural areas, I’ll grant you that. But in the cities, people read.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's important to note that a creature cannot speak but can understand a language. It can receive orders but not respond verbally to questions. This can and does come up quite frequently. Being able to read or write is a question that comes up less often - I've yet to have actually had to rule on this.
If that's what you consider the most convincing...it's not very convincing. The first complains that having being literate even in a single language is unlikely (and I'm inferring the complaint is about many characters having multiple languages), he responds not that people were likely to be literate, but that there were many multilingual societies. Yeah, and in other news, the Pope is Catholic. Most societies would logically have had large segments of bilingual people - trade and proximity necessitated it, even without regard to how society treated language. That doesn't mean they were able to speak and write.
The second points out that it's odd that so many people are able to write, he responds not by pointing out that in reality people did read and write, but by pointing out that D&D societies can be and are (in indefinite scope) illiterate. That even contradicts your Commoner language statblock claim - they all have that statblock, and if the statblock meant that they were literate, then they would all be literate. Since some aren't, then their literacy, or lack thereof, is not indicated by the statblock.
I've yet to see anything that says that the Commoner is literate and capable of reading a book - it's left to the DM to decide how literate a society is.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The implication I'm reading from the last line "There are illiterate cultures in all our D&D worlds,..." is that there are adventures, or other setting details, that would explicitly modify the generic monster entry for that culture. As in, illiteracy is explicitly called out in source material because it is notable, whereas literacy is not. Though, you are right that none of this is definitive.
Previous editions have had spells that require reading as a trigger, such as Sepia Snake Sigil, so there would have been some call to highlight this ability, should it not have been common.
I wonder if that 20% accounted for functional literacy; where we define this as people who could read and write ‘enough’ in society relative to their role. One might be able to identify words related to their work, like a shoemaker needing to know which raw materials they need to purchase or a merchant needing to understand enough of the written word to navigate purchase contracts. Would they be considered literate or illiterate if their ability to read and write failed to extend beyond their labor role and if they had received no formal education? If 20% is defined as say ‘how much of the population received formal education’, then I do not think it would be a very reliable figure to understand population literacy at the time. A big enough of a question mark that I’m interested in learning more.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Even in cities, only some people read. If you owned a business - sure, you almost certainly knew your letters. Mind, you wouldn't have much use for them. Numbers, yea. Letters, not so much. But if you were one of the poor schmucks working a grindstone, producing cutlery (one of the very first mass produced items) then hell no! In the country, where you lived or died by whether or not the fields were sowed and plowed and tilled and harvested - and where reading was of absolutely zero relevance to anything, you'd likely go through life without ever seeing a scrap of paper - you did not read. Maybe you went to school for a few years, and you learned about christ our lord and savior
Why do you think the Trolls Head tavern had an actual trolls head hanging over the door? Because no one would know what it was, if it was written there instead. And that's a Terry Pratchett reference, so not ... ironclad, conclusive proof, as such.
There is proof, though. If you have any interest, I don't know. But there are plenty of documents signed by X's, or signed by someone other than the actual signee. There is the mere fact of rote learning: Children were taught to recite the catechismus - by heart - not to read it. There is the fact that religious law in Denmark required children to know the catechismus in order to get confirmation, from 1736, in Denmark. So from that time, children were taught in church - or in church schools. Before then, there basically were no schools, period.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.